 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Ex parte Discount Foods, Inc., 1991127,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, January 12, 2001, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Broad arbitration clause encompassed intentional torts and negligence claims as applied to signatories; however, no duty to arbitrate same claims against defendant's subsidiary applied where subsidiary was not party to contract.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Edwards, 1991502,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, January 12, 2001, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant had not acted knowingly, recklessly, or in a criminally negligent manner, she was entitled to a judgment of acquittal with respect to the vehicular homicide charge that was brought against her.
|
|||||
| Ex parte J.D.H., 1982096,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, January 12, 2001, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sixteen-day lapse between Miranda advisement and juvenile defendant's custodial statement made that statement inadmissible at trial, under the circumstances.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Michelin N. Am., Inc., 1990615,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, January 12, 2001, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted defendants summary judgment on fired employee's breach of contract claim, because the employee's failure to show that there was any agreement to employ him for a stated duration meant he was an at-will employee.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Powell, 1990546,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, January 12, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction and death sentence imposed on defendant in connection with capital murder of a 70-year-old woman were affirmed. No error, plain or otherwise, was found.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Scudder, 1990948, 1991347 and 1991519,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, January 12, 2001, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner did not have a constitutional right, but had a statutory right to represent himself on direct appeal; thus, attorney's mandamus petition was also granted so the attorney could withdraw and allow petitioner to represent himself.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Warrior Lighthouse, Inc., 1990958,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, January 12, 2001, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Compelled disclosure of coal-sale contract granted in suit seeking damages caused to plaintiffs' property by coal mining operations where disclosure was relevant to defendants' economic motive for engaging in high-yield extraction.
|
|||||
| Ex parte West, 1992036,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, January 12, 2001, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In civil action arising from an automobile accident, the defendant could not rely on his codefendant's subsequent jury demand where defendant's first jury demand was not timely, so writ of mandamus denied.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Williams, 1990902,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, January 12, 2001, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was convicted of murder, and was sentenced to death. He raised various issues on appeal involving jury instruction and evidentiary errors. However, the errors were not preserved for appeal, and were not plain error.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Woods, 1990867,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, January 12, 2001, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Deputies had been told appellant, in custody for murder, wished to talk to them. Therefore, it was not improper to ask appellant whether he mistakenly indicated on waiver form that he did not wish to make a statement.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
